His logic is flawed.... one individual using many concurrent packets causes the network to slow down thus everybody gets the same speed so bandwidth caps are not the solution? Ok, then a restriction on concurrent connections would be the solution to high usage clients (remember I'm the one who doesn't use bittorrent and thus shouldn't be penalized with slower speeds because of somebody else's useage) but that would absolutely kill the current P2P model.

OTOH, I agree with the argument that legitimate high(er) bandwidth services (like netflix) need regulatory protection against the CoI ISPs/Content Produces currently have, but in order to do that we need to find a way to mark those data streams so that they can be treated differently WRT caps. By differently I don't mean completely free (high bandwidth business models should bear some of the cost of actual transmission), but it should be a flat fee (say $5 / month) to allow unlimitted bandwidth from that source.

Even without bottlenecking or technical limitations I feel like a service I use to pay monthly for has twisted itself into a pay as you go. When I pay for a month of internet I want the option to use the service 24/7 at the speeds quoted.

I'd much prefer a ISP model with slower speeds that remain consistent and your bandwidth cap is your speed times amount of time in a month.

As of right now I have a significantly larger need for more bandwidth than higher speeds. I'd rather 10/1 with a 500gb cap than 70/5 with a 120gb cap.

Even without bottlenecking or technical limitations I feel like a service I use to pay monthly for has twisted itself into a pay as you go. When I pay for a month of internet I want the option to use the service 24/7 at the speeds quoted.

I'd much prefer a ISP model with slower speeds that remain consistent and your bandwidth cap is your speed times amount of time in a month.

As of right now I have a significantly larger need for more bandwidth than higher speeds. I'd rather 10/1 with a 500gb cap than 70/5 with a 120gb cap.

See... this is where I disagree.... I only download around 60 G / month but when I want to download either a steam game or a large driver I want it to dowload fast so the higher speed and reasonably low bandwidth cap works for me.

I say that the ISPs be forced to get their utilities in the same manner that they charge us:

- flat rate for so many litres of water, with huge penalties for going over
- flat rate for electricity, with huge penalties for going over.

To monitor utility usage, let someone at Bell or Rogers go to a website and keep a close eye on what they use.

I would not mind a total pay as you go model for internet usage if my bandwidth usage really costs ISPs money. So many cents per mb, so that way if I dont use anything then I don't pay anything....if I go nuts downloading movies, I pay some more. the author of the video might disagree, but if the ISPs want to play that game they should not be able to have their cake and eat it too.

Honestly the problems with ISPs (Well in Canada anyway.) Is that they overcharge compare to other countries. I understand we have a lot more area to cover but they don't offer their services to 100% of Canada, so I do not see the high price. They also exaggerate on how much they charge once that cap has passed. Pay to much for to slow internet and pay to much for little data we can download/upload.

I wish I could have millions of dollars to start my own ISP (and nothing else, forget TVs and home phones lol.) Build a fiber optics infrastructure to give them great speed, no caps what so ever (somewhere around 250 Mbps sounds about right, probably can't do what Google did with Kansas City.) At a reasonable price, the price should be calculated based: the maintenance costs for infrastructures and a profit for the services (I'm talking about a small profit after paying the employees), nothing else. (Unless I'm forgetting something.)

But it's only a dream and I really doubt it'll become a reality for me, most ISPs have to borrow from Bell's network in order to provide services.

His logic is flawed.... one individual using many concurrent packets causes the network to slow down thus everybody gets the same speed so bandwidth caps are not the solution? Ok, then a restriction on concurrent connections would be the solution to high usage clients (remember I'm the one who doesn't use bittorrent and thus shouldn't be penalized with slower speeds because of somebody else's useage) but that would absolutely kill the current P2P model.

Well that is already built in.

If the backbone is a gigabit going out and there are 10 houses all running 100mbit it really doesn't matter who does what.

However, ISPs, especially in the early 90's loved to stick 1000 houses on one link of the same speed then it's catastrophic if multiple users are using the internet heavily. Everyone crawls to a standstill - ask people living in Richmond back then

It really depends on how they've set up the network.

I agree with jibz. I have all the time in the world to get a game downloaded or whatever, but I don't want to deal with caps.

Companies love caps because they are the revenue generator.

Ever notice that cellphone plans will give you lots of data or lots of voice? You have to fight to get them together. They want to charge everyone a base rate of $50 then have them go over on either data or voice, then they make that extra.

When I negotiated with my cellphone provider they noted that I used about a 100megs/month of data, so they wanted to offer me 500 megs for some ridiculous price. However, knowing that I can tether my phone there is a possibility that I may go somewhere and tether to my laptop and 500 megs probably wouldn't last. Then I'd have ridiculous overages on my holiday - for nothing.

In the end I got 5GB of data for less than what they were originally offering.... and I still use 100 megs a month. Except now I don't have risk (or very little risk) of overages now.

The biggest problem with caps is with companies like Bell, their caps have shrunk as media competition has come in. Instead of technology progressing and caps getting larger, they are shrinking and its not a technological reason. They are doing this to make money off of that $8 netflix account, or steam service, not because it hurts their network by any reason. Network management really is not that hard to do, they already do a pretty decent job in the data centers so its a pretty piss poor excuse. They have oversold and stayed stagnant for too long and are shitting their pants with a world economy offering services cheaper and better then anything they offer. So all they are doing is flexing their monopoly muscles and taking their cut.

The video kind of loses me a bit when minecraft is undermining the TV networks.... But I agree with it roughly....sort of for the most part.

The video kind of loses me a bit when minecraft is undermining the TV networks

The minecraft part was explaining people like me. I haven't watched programmed television in about 8 years because the internet is my go-to for entertaining myself. With satellite TV being another $90 service ontop they most certainly have an interest in attempting to keep it alive.

As for TV, there are a couple of shows I'd still like to watch but I have no intention of subscribing to a whole other form of broadcasting(cable/satellite) and obtaining a whole new set of equipment(digital box + tv). I'd be willing to pay per show and watch on demand if these companies would just let TV die already and offer online services.

A prime example is HBO calling the internet a fad while their product is the most pirated of all time. If there was a convenient means of legally obtaining Game of Thrones I'm sure they would acquire quite the customer base.